From one Democrat to others: lay off Palin.
They won’t take it, though. They can’t help themselves. They’re too arrogant, and think that they’re smarter than their political opponents. They also think that they understand conservatives and Republicans, when they’re completely clueless, as Mr. Sapp points out. So they’ll continue to dig themselves a deeper hole.
[Update a few minutes later]
See? They can’t stop: they’re equating Sarah Palin with Osama bin Laden.
[Update a while later]
Jeeeez. Now Sarah Palin isn’t a woman.
Who knew? Sure fooled me.
One telling point in the linked “not a woman” article:
“I’d love to know precisely how the Good Lord conveyed to her so clearly his intention to destroy the environment (global warming, she thinks, is not the work of human hands, so it must be the work of You Know Who)..”
Climate change has to be either man-made, or magic? Are those really the only options the author could think of?
“So they’ll continue to dig themselves a deeper hole.”
And the DNC has a fleet of backhoes on retainer to help them.
“Are those really the only options the author could think of?”
Considering the source, Harpoon – yes.
Destroy the environment? Christ, this is the sort of The End Is Near Chicken-Littleism you’d think we’d have left behind in the Middle Ages.
Suppose the worst possible outcome with global warming. Anyone think we’re talking about the equivalent of another Ice Age? A period, say, in which the Earth becomes 10 degrees hotter and vast interior areas of the continents are lifeless deserts? And even that has actually happened before, and done just about zip to “destroy” the environment. Change it, yes, and make dozens if not thousands of species go extinct (and allow new species to evolve, too, of course — one critter’s ecological disaster is another’s ecological opportunity, as the rodent mammal said to the dinosaur when the temperature started to fall).
The most we’re talking about is Canada becoming a balmy bread basket while the Arizona/Nevada/Utah desert expands to engulf Idaho, non-coastal California, Colorado and bits of Kansas. Lots of us move north, I guess, and the Governor of Alaska becomes as important a job as Governor of New York or California. Maybe twice as many big hurricanes, making it rough to live along the Gulf Coast in a house that isn’t built tough and on stilts. But it’s not like the Gulf becomes like Antarctica or the Moon, a place where you can only visit in space suits, but not live year-round.
Who knows? Maybe even the Gulf Stream stops, so that England starts to have the climate of Iceland and Greenland, which would certainly suck for the English — they’d all have to emigrate and become like the Palestinians, journeyman workers with nostalgic tales of The Homeland.
But destroy the environment, turn the Earth into a lifeless searing ball like Venus, or an arid airless desert like Mars? Let’s get a grip, shall we? Blech.
Maybe even the Gulf Stream stops, so that England starts to have the climate of Iceland and Greenland, which would certainly suck for the English
The Gulf Stream isn’t what keeps northern Europe warm. The Rockies do. And they’re not in any danger of going anywhere soon…
Is that based on the Seager work, Rand? Interesting stuff. But if so…hmmm, you’re relying on general circulation computer models of climate, the same kinds of things that predict global warming (or not, depending on how you fiddle with them).
I’m kind of a global climate computer model skeptic myself, in part because I’ve built and run big complex computer models myself. I know what goes in the sausage, so to speak. I think I’m going to vote “present” on this.
Is that based on the Seager work, Rand?
Yes.
I think I’m going to vote “present” on this.
Well, if it isn’t the Rockies, you have to come up with some other explanation, because I think that he makes a good argument that the Gulf Stream doesn’t have sufficient heat capacity to do the job by itself. The notion that it warms Europe is one of those theories that seems obvious until one actually runs the numbers.
Pfft, Rand, you’re making the wrong argument to me. I can’t tell you how many plausible, logical, and compelling theoretical arguments I’ve made and heard in my scientific career that turn out to be dead wrong. Nature is a little perverse that way. Plausibility and reasonability are just the very starting points for a solid theory, necessary but not even close to sufficient conditions for its truth. Especially when we’re talking about emergent behaviour in complex systems with many strongly-interacting degrees of freedom.
Anyway, as a said, I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m not qualified to do so. I’m just saying that I’m skeptical of all conclusions based on computer models of complex systems, and that’s based on my very humbling personal experience designing and using such models.
Carl, I’m not arguing that Seager’s theory is necessarily right. I’m just pointing out that the Gulf Stream theory is almost certainly wrong, based on simple thermodynamics. Seager has posited an alternative that is more plausible. You are free to come up with your own, if you don’t like it.
Wha…? Simple thermodynamics? I didn’t see anything like that in there. I saw the results of a very complex simulation, no back of the envelope calculation.
If you’ve got one, or can point to it, fire away. I’d be very interested in such a thing. Thermodynamics is my pet obsession and major research interest. It would be a fascinating “practical” application to know.